"Both petitioner (Umesh Kumar) and the 4th respondent (Dinesh) would allege that the other had resorted to a smear campaign against him. These allegations show that the media is being used and the judicial process subverted by public officials in their no-holds barred pursuit of high offices." "If the allegations levelled by the petitioner and the fourth respondent against each other have any basis, it would show that in their fight to occupy the top post of the DGP, both the media and the portals of this court have been used (misused) to eliminate the other from the race, without any regard to the consequences which such allegations may have on the credibility of the police force and also the institution of the judiciary. That the judicial process was sought to be subverted in this mindless and selfish pursuit of personal glory is a matter of serious concern, and may well necessitate a strict threshold scrutiny of the writ petitions being instituted before this court."''It would be a public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing false affidavits or giving of false statements or fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly.''"The record placed before this court reveals that for years 1978-83 the fourth respondent (Dinesh Reddy) disclosed details of his ancestral house, landed property and income derived therefrom. For 1984 and 1985, he merely stated there were no acquisitions and no disposals. For 1986 he stated ancestral property was as in previous statements. He referred to the income derived therefrom, to income which he derived from shares, and the money he received from his father as due from his agricultural income. For 1987 he merely declared “same as last year”. The records do not disclose any annual property statements having been submitted for 1988, 1989 and 1990.For 1991, the respondent stated that it was the “same as last year”, but he referred to a house being constructed on his wife's site. Again for 1992, 1993 and 1994 the endorsement in the annual property statements is the “same as last year”. The record does not contain the annual property statements of the respondent for 1995 and 1996. For 1997, the respondent stated “same as last year”, but referred to proceeds received by his wife on the sale of her property.For 1998 the endorsement was “same as last year”. The record does not contain any of his annual property statements for 1999 and 2001. For 2000, the endorsement is “same as last year" and that he and his wife purchased and constructed a house on a site (details of which were given therein).For 2002 and 2003 the endorsement was “same as last year”. The records do not contain the annual property statements of the respondent for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. For 2008 the endorsement was “nil - no further additions and same as previous one. Hence NIL”. For 2009, 2010 and 2011 immovable and movable properties are shown as “NIL”. It is evident that almost all property returns filed by respondent, spanning more than 3 decades, are bereft of details and fall foul of memos issued.
Comments
0 comment